Your religion or your livelihood.....

[Rex Kickass]

IT DOESN'T MATTER. I deal in the world of reality, and in that world, we're talking about $8.75 an hour, which is plenty. End of debate.

 

As to your second point, again, please sign my petition to sue Henry Ford for ruining my great grandfathers livery stable. That SOB's evil, greedy business model ruined an entire industry. Just like in every other time of history, when businesses close or someone comes out with a better product, those that get left behind have to adapt. As Tex says, big box stores are just better at what they do. There's still room for the mom and pop store. Become more specialized, that's the key. But this is a process that started decades ago. It's not like it just happened.

 

And how you can argue "lack of opportunities" when you yourself are denying them one?

 

I think the disconnect here is that you're coming from the perspective of a middle class neighborhood (like in your study) whereas i'm coming from the 40% unemployed, highest crime rate, highest obesity rate, lack of any meaningful jobs, and a food desert neighborhood. Let's assume that Wal-mart will crush EVERY business in that area. It's STILL better for those neighborhoods' health and economy because there's nothing there to begin with.

 

$8.75 an hour is a gross annual pay of $18,200. You can call that a lot of things, but I wouldn't call that plenty. Especially if I live in Chicago.

[StrangeSox]

hey, jenks paid for part of a year of college on less than that! what are these poor people complaining about!

 

We end up paying the real costs of these goods through all of the government programs their employees rely on and the tax breaks they get. Walmart just gets to make big profit in the middle.

[Iwritecode]

hey, jenks paid for part of a year of college on less than that! what are these poor people complaining about!

 

We end up paying the real costs of these goods through all of the government programs their employees rely on and the tax breaks they get. Walmart just gets to make big profit in the middle.

 

Aren't these people already relying on government programs?

[StrangeSox]

Aren't these people already relying on government programs?

 

Yes. And Walmart relies on them remaining on government programs to keep their prices superficially low.

[Iwritecode]

Yes. And Walmart relies on them remaining on government programs to keep their prices superficially low.

 

So instead of having a job and relying less on the government, you'd rather have them be unemployed and rely soley on the government?

[Jenksismyhero]

It does matter, because that's the heart of the damned argument. It's a philosophical difference between what's acceptable or not. I reject your "it's better than nothing" argument and I'm asking you to define where on the continuum between sweatshops and low-paying dead end jobs you find that argument to fail. Extremely low wages are "real world' and hey, guess what, Walmart relies on them to sell their products so cheap.

 

WTF does this matter?!?! I'm not arguing that having a walmart on EVERY street corner in the country is a good thing. I'm limiting it to these incredibly poor areas that have no other similar options for jobs OR goods. I don't give a s*** about a philosophical argument about where you and I think the poverty line is. As I said 14 pages ago, we're not talking about putting an entire industry of 15k professional level jobs there, we're talking reality, which is a company that is bring JOBS to a place with LITTLE TO NOT JOBS and LITTLE HOPE FOR JOBS. So wtf cares that they're not getting a "reasonable" wage (according to you), what they're being offered is ABOVE the minimum wage, and IMO more than reasonable. There’s no other point in debating this topic because you and I just differ on what the responsibility of a company should be in its pay to people. Fine, agree to disagree. My whole point is that their current offer is immensely better than what they currently have. There’s no need to define where that grey line fits.

 

 

That is not comparable. Henry Ford's methods replaced jobs with new and different ones. What jobs are Walmart adding to our economy? They're removing manufacturing and best-case scenario are 1 for 1 on retail.

 

It's a general comment that you're arguing some big company is taking over and destroying little shops. Destroying little shops and putting people out of business has happened before and will continue to happen. So fine, replace Henry Ford with the founder of all the major banks, grocery stores, electronic stores, etc etc etc. They all put the local mom and pop store out of business, yet, as a city, we're not denying them the opportunity to build stores. I don't care how big Walmart is, all of these chain stores have the potential to destroy local business but we look the other way.

 

 

I don't consider $8.75/ hr to be a real opportunity at a career with decent pay. You're redefining terms.

 

Ok. Fine. But you still don't think 8.75 is better than nothing? That's my argument. Stop making it into a bigger philosophical argument.

 

Do we have evidence of Walmart creating an entire economy on its own? That's what you're arguing for here. Walmart's going to come into an area with no jobs and no business, employ people for minimum wage and then those people will turn right back around and spend all of their money at Walmart. Great 'company store' model for Walmart, but will it really improve the quality of life?

 

And you're still not addressing the tax issue. Why should the taxpayer support Walmart's low wages so they can keep bringing in large profits?

 

First, it's not minimum wage. It's much more than that. Second, who gives a flying f*** if those people turn around and shop at Walmart. The whole point is that THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO REASONABLE GOODS IN THE AREAS THEY LIVE. Nor do they have the INCOME to do so (other than what is provided to them by the government). So boom, you've just created two benefits for those people that will GREATLY improve their quality of life. You keep ignoring the fact that these people have no access to decent food, and that has led them to be some of the unhealthiest people in the city.

 

And I'm not addressing this tax argument because it's not a good one and it has no relevance to the benefits these people will get from having such a store in their neighborhood. Here, maybe this will help:

 

Currently - person A has no access to decent food, has no job, lives on government assistance

Potentially - person A has access to decent food, has a job paying MORE than minimum wage (and MORE than the ZERO dollars he was earning before) and probably STILL is on government assistance.

 

So WTF cares if the taxpayer continues to pay towards their government assistance, THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT. It's not something NEW.

 

Now, if you'd like to argue that we should get rid of government assistance all together, and THEN complain about Walmart maybe not providing a high enough wage, that's an argument I'd partake in.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Also, is North and Kilpatrick really a middle class neighborhood?

 

http://www.wildonions.org/ChicagoResource/...Information.htm

 

edit:

 

No, not really:

http://www.uicni.org/page.php?section=neig...bsection=austin

According to statistics from the Chicago Public Schools' lunch program, 90% of the children who attend Austin public schools are from poor families, 6% are working poor and 4% are lower-middle income. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the per capita income in Austin is approximately $12,823.

 

So, that previous UIC/ Loyla study is directly applicable to poorer neighborhoods in Chicago with low median incomes and high unemployment.

Edited June 24, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

This:

WTF does this matter?!?! I'm not arguing that having a walmart on EVERY street corner in the country is a good thing. I'm limiting it to these incredibly poor areas that have no other similar options for jobs OR goods. I don't give a s*** about a philosophical argument about where you and I think the poverty line is. As I said 14 pages ago, we're not talking about putting an entire industry of 15k professional level jobs there, we're talking reality, which is a company that is bring JOBS to a place with LITTLE TO NOT JOBS and LITTLE HOPE FOR JOBS. So wtf cares that they're not getting a "reasonable" wage (according to you), what they're being offered is ABOVE the minimum wage, and IMO more than reasonable. There’s no other point in debating this topic because you and I just differ on what the responsibility of a company should be in its pay to people. Fine, agree to disagree. My whole point is that their current offer is immensely better than what they currently have. There’s no need to define where that grey line fits.

And this:

Ok. Fine. But you still don't think 8.75 is better than nothing? That's my argument. Stop making it into a bigger philosophical argument.

 

Don't make sense. The whole argument is over what level of wage is "better than nothing." I don't think $8.75 and continuing the path we're on is better than nothing in the long run, you do. So, there is a deeper question that needs to be addressed: what level is acceptable? That's what the argument really is about and that's what needs to be addressed because it gets to the assumptions and underlying factors of what that wage really represents. You need to justify why that $8.75 and everything that comes with further expansion of Walmart and Walmart-like stores is better than trying to fight against expansion of Walmart and Walmart-like stores and business practices. You can't just look at $8.75>$0 and walk away, pretending that's actually solving any real issues.

 

 

 

 

It's a general comment that you're arguing some big company is taking over and destroying little shops. Destroying little shops and putting people out of business has happened before and will continue to happen. So fine, replace Henry Ford with the founder of all the major banks, grocery stores, electronic stores, etc etc etc. They all put the local mom and pop store out of business, yet, as a city, we're not denying them the opportunity to build stores. I don't care how big Walmart is, all of these chain stores have the potential to destroy local business but we look the other way.

 

I'm arguing against jobs disappearing and being replaced 1 to 1 at best with low-paying, no-advancement retail jobs. That is not the same as assembly lines or new technology that replaces old jobs with new, better or equal jobs. And yeah, this argument can be applied against a lot of big box stores, but Walmart gets targeted because they're the biggest and probably the worst.

 

First, it's not minimum wage. It's much more than that. Second, who gives a flying f*** if those people turn around and shop at Walmart. The whole point is that THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO REASONABLE GOODS IN THE AREAS THEY LIVE. Nor do they have the INCOME to do so (other than what is provided to them by the government). So boom, you've just created two benefits for those people that will GREATLY improve their quality of life. You keep ignoring the fact that these people have no access to decent food, and that has led them to be some of the unhealthiest people in the city.

 

First, $8.75 is not "much more" than $8.00, the current IL minimum wage. Second, you're supporting my claim of the poverty cycle. Walmart (and others) drive out industrial jobs -> poor, unemployed people should be thankful to Walmart for coming in and giving them $8.75/ hour -> they have to spend their money at the only store in town - > Walmart gets stronger, driving out more and more industrial and even decent retail jobs as well as small businesses.

 

Finally, you're assuming that the only way to get reasonable goods and food to an impoverished area is Walmart. We could, instead, bring in actual grocery stores, farmers markets, food co-ops, etc. etc. that could also provide employment benefits. You know, like the programs proposed that started this thread. But the tax breaks go to those with bigger pockets and bigger influence.

 

And I'm not addressing this tax argument because it's not a good one and it has no relevance to the benefits these people will get from having such a store in their neighborhood. Here, maybe this will help:

 

Currently - person A has no access to decent food, has no job, lives on government assistance

Potentially - person A has access to decent food, has a job paying MORE than minimum wage (and MORE than the ZERO dollars he was earning before) and probably STILL is on government assistance.

 

So WTF cares if the taxpayer continues to pay towards their government assistance, THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT. It's not something NEW.

 

Now, if you'd like to argue that we should get rid of government assistance all together, and THEN complain about Walmart maybe not providing a high enough wage, that's an argument I'd partake in.

 

You're right, the taxpayer burden is tangential to the issue of whether or not this really helps the poor. I think it's a reasonable argument against middle class shopping at Walmart for artificially low prices, but it doesn't have bearing on Walmart's direct effect on poor urban areas.

 

[Iwritecode]

I can't find the original post with the link it in but this report seems to have a flaw in it.

 

It says that "Four of the five stakeholder groups are being served poorly".

 

The groups are customers, shareholders, vendors, community and workers. According to the graph in the report, shareholder expectations are being met at 100% and customer expectations are being met at around 70%.

 

Both of those are higher than anyone else. (which means it's only 3 of the 5).

 

Wal-Mart is really, really good at making a lot of people happy.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Iwritecode

[Iwritecode]

I'm arguing against jobs disappearing and being replaced 1 to 1 at best with low-paying, no-advancement retail jobs.

 

Are these mom-and-pop shops that are disappearing really offering better wages, more opportunity for advancment and better benefits?

[Jenksismyhero]

This:

 

And this:

 

 

Don't make sense. The whole argument is over what level of wage is "better than nothing." I don't think $8.75 and continuing the path we're on is better than nothing in the long run, you do. So, there is a deeper question that needs to be addressed: what level is acceptable? That's what the argument really is about and that's what needs to be addressed because it gets to the assumptions and underlying factors of what that wage really represents. You need to justify why that $8.75 and everything that comes with further expansion of Walmart and Walmart-like stores is better than trying to fight against expansion of Walmart and Walmart-like stores and business practices. You can't just look at $8.75>$0 and walk away, pretending that's actually solving any real issues.

 

There's nothing else in the foreseeable future coming into those areas. You're eseentially arguing that Walmart isn't good enough, and that maintaining the status quo is better. I just fundamentally disagree with that.

 

 

I'm arguing against jobs disappearing and being replaced 1 to 1 at best with low-paying, no-advancement retail jobs. That is not the same as assembly lines or new technology that replaces old jobs with new, better or equal jobs. And yeah, this argument can be applied against a lot of big box stores, but Walmart gets targeted because they're the biggest and probably the worst.

 

Again, what's the alternative here? Where's the line of potential commercial developers willing to go into those neighborhoods in this current economy. In theory, sure, I'd love a factory or something to go into certain neighborhoods that need jobs, but that's not reality.

 

 

First, $8.75 is not "much more" than $8.00, the current IL minimum wage. Second, you're supporting my claim of the poverty cycle. Walmart (and others) drive out industrial jobs -> poor, unemployed people should be thankful to Walmart for coming in and giving them $8.75/ hour -> they have to spend their money at the only store in town - > Walmart gets stronger, driving out more and more industrial and even decent retail jobs as well as small businesses

 

Finally, you're assuming that the only way to get reasonable goods and food to an impoverished area is Walmart. We could, instead, bring in actual grocery stores, farmers markets, food co-ops, etc. etc. that could also provide employment benefits. You know, like the programs proposed that started this thread. But the tax breaks go to those with bigger pockets and bigger influence..

 

It can't perpetuate a cycle when it's offering more to people that they had before. No one is arguing that they're suddenly going to become rich because of walmart, but they'll be in a better position. This isn't a company town situation like you're making it.

 

And how is a major grocery store any different? How many convenience stores are they going to put out of business? How do you propose getting local farmers into these areas for a market?

 

You're right, the taxpayer burden is tangential to the issue of whether or not this really helps the poor. I think it's a reasonable argument against middle class shopping at Walmart for artificially low prices, but it doesn't have bearing on Walmart's direct effect on poor urban areas.

 

So, everyone stop shopping at walmart and don't allow walmart into these areas and the people there will be better off?

[StrangeSox]

Are these mom-and-pop shops that are disappearing really offering better wages, more opportunity for advancment and better benefits?

 

I've barely mentioned local small businesses. It's the manufacturing/ industrial jobs that have disappeared from this country that are bringing down the lower and middle classes, and Walmart's business practices are a part of that.

 

Remember when they used to proudly advertise "Made in America"?

[StrangeSox]

There's nothing else in the foreseeable future coming into those areas. You're eseentially arguing that Walmart isn't good enough, and that maintaining the status quo is better. I just fundamentally disagree with that.

 

No I'm not:

Finally, you're assuming that the only way to get reasonable goods and food to an impoverished area is Walmart. We could, instead, bring in actual grocery stores, farmers markets, food co-ops, etc. etc. that could also provide employment benefits. You know, like the programs proposed that started this thread. But the tax breaks go to those with bigger pockets and bigger influence..

 

I'm arguing that Walmart-as-savior apologia only ensures that the situation continues to get worse across this country.

 

 

 

Again, what's the alternative here? Where's the line of potential commercial developers willing to go into those neighborhoods in this current economy. In theory, sure, I'd love a factory or something to go into certain neighborhoods that need jobs, but that's not reality.

 

And why isn't manufacturing in this country a reality? Could it be big box retailers, led by Walmart, using their purchasing power to drive their suppliers to overseas workers?

 

 

 

 

It can't perpetuate a cycle when it's offering more to people that they had before. No one is arguing that they're suddenly going to become rich because of walmart, but they'll be in a better position. This isn't a company town situation like you're making it.

 

Yes, it can perpetuate a cycle of poverty when they're paying them poverty-level wages and their business practices make sure decent jobs they could reasonably obtain keep getting sent away instead. That's the cycle.

 

And how is a major grocery store any different? How many convenience stores are they going to put out of business? How do you propose getting local farmers into these areas for a market?

 

A grocery store doesn't need to have the outsourcing demands placed on suppliers. They may not drive jobs out of the country. Walmart doesn't need to do this, either, but they chose to.

 

 

 

So, everyone stop shopping at walmart and don't allow walmart into these areas and the people there will be better off?

 

Everyone change shopping habits from buying cheap crap imported all over the world to actually supporting our own citizens and yes, in the long run, things will be better off. With the Walmart system, things will only continue to get worse.

 

1.Person A is growing up and sees relatives and neighbors working good manufacturing jobs. They're not wealthy by any means, but they make a good living for their family.

2.Company B comes in and forces all of its suppliers to look to overseas work.

3.Person A sees the factories closing, people losing jobs and the neighborhood declining. After graduating HS, they have no employment prospects in their area and little way to get out. they're stuck in poverty.

4.Company B comes in and SuperStore in Person A's impoverished neighborhood. Person A should be thankful that Company B is willing to pay them less than $20,000 a year because, hey, it's better than nothing!

5.Person A gets a job at Company B's store making little money. Being the only store around, he also shops at Company B. And hey, they have decent food and reasonable prices. This doesn't seem so bad, except that this step reinforces step 2.

 

Hence, a feedback loop or a cycle encouraging the removal of decent jobs and replacing them (1:1 at best, usually lower) with bad ones. It's happened all over this country and it's not sustainable. Not everyone can get into a professional career like lawyer, doctor, business manager etc., and it's especially difficult when coming from poverty.

Edited June 24, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Iwritecode]

I've barely mentioned local small businesses. It's the manufacturing/ industrial jobs that have disappeared from this country that are bringing down the lower and middle classes, and Walmart's business practices are a part of that.

 

Remember when they used to proudly advertise "Made in America"?

 

Even "American" products aren't made in America anymore.

 

A friend of mine was just looking at a Chevy that's assembled in Canada with an engine from China and a transmission from Japan.

[StrangeSox]

Even "American" products aren't made in America anymore.

 

A friend of mine was just looking at a Chevy that's assembled in Canada with an engine from China and a transmission from Japan.

 

You can find things legitimately made in America. They cost more and aren't nearly as plentiful on store shelves.

[Balta1701]

I would argue that you might be paying a little more on some items but you are saving on time and gas and sometimes convinience if you have to run out at 3AM and no other place is open.

Exactly. It's a convenience store. Which means you're not paying the lowest price on most items and you shouldn't pretend that you are.

[StrangeSox]

Jenks, I'll concede that, in the short term, this may help community residents (I'd like to see a follow-up study to the Loyola/ UIC one a few years from now, but they may be very difficult due to various economic factors). But long term, no, this won't help them or communities like it across the country.

[Iwritecode]

Exactly. It's a convenience store. Which means you're not paying the lowest price on most items and you shouldn't pretend that you are.

 

I was actually comparing spending a couple of hours at Wal-Mart and getting everthing I need at once to spending half the day driving around to 3 or 4 different places to save a few bucks.

[Balta1701]

I was actually comparing spending a couple of hours at Wal-Mart and getting everthing I need at once to spending half the day driving around to 3 or 4 different places to save a few bucks.

Which remains the definition of a convenience store. It's a different type of convenience store from the gas station down the street, but you're still paying extra for convenience.

[StrangeSox]

As you shop different stores, you should be building a mental map of what costs what and where. You can go to store A week 1, store B week 2 etc. and stock up on what's good there to avoid having to go to all of them on the same day.

[Iwritecode]

Which remains the definition of a convenience store. It's a different type of convenience store from the gas station down the street, but you're still paying extra for convenience.

 

Not on everything though.

[Iwritecode]

As you shop different stores, you should be building a mental map of what costs what and where. You can go to store A week 1, store B week 2 etc. and stock up on what's good there to avoid having to go to all of them on the same day.

 

Honestly, we do go to other stores when they have sales or we have coupons. But that probably only accounts for about 20% of our total shopping.

[Balta1701]

Honestly, we do go to other stores when they have sales or we have coupons. But that probably only accounts for about 20% of our total shopping.

I'd say sales/coupons accounts for about 80-90% of mine. The only thing I typically don't get on sale is fresh fruit/vegetables.

[Jenksismyhero]

And why isn't manufacturing in this country a reality? Could it be big box retailers, led by Walmart, using their purchasing power to drive their suppliers to overseas workers?

 

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. I don't think Walmart would import its goods if it didn't have to. But it has to because of the problem it's currently fighting: unions. It costs too damned much to manufacture goods in this country. See, the auto industry, the steel industry, etc.

 

 

A grocery store doesn't need to have the outsourcing demands placed on suppliers. They may not drive jobs out of the country. Walmart doesn't need to do this, either, but they chose to.

 

See above. They're forced to to some extent to keep their prices down.

 

 

Everyone change shopping habits from buying cheap crap imported all over the world to actually supporting our own citizens and yes, in the long run, things will be better off. With the Walmart system, things will only continue to get worse.

 

1.Person A is growing up and sees relatives and neighbors working good manufacturing jobs. They're not wealthy by any means, but they make a good living for their family.

2.Company B comes in and forces all of its suppliers to look to overseas work.

3.Person A sees the factories closing, people losing jobs and the neighborhood declining. After graduating HS, they have no employment prospects in their area and little way to get out. they're stuck in poverty.

4.Company B comes in and SuperStore in Person A's impoverished neighborhood. Person A should be thankful that Company B is willing to pay them less than $20,000 a year because, hey, it's better than nothing!

5.Person A gets a job at Company B's store making little money. Being the only store around, he also shops at Company B. And hey, they have decent food and reasonable prices. This doesn't seem so bad, except that this step reinforces step 2.

 

Hence, a feedback loop or a cycle encouraging the removal of decent jobs and replacing them (1:1 at best, usually lower) with bad ones. It's happened all over this country and it's not sustainable. Not everyone can get into a professional career like lawyer, doctor, business manager etc., and it's especially difficult when coming from poverty.

 

I agree we should change our buying habits and demand better quality, but it's just not realistic anymore to expect companies not to seek out the lowest possible alternative. Why would someone pay 50 bucks for a tshirt that I can get for 15? Why wouldn't a company outsource so that it can maintain that low price?

 

And I think your example makes sense, but now the question is what is government's responsibility in that scenario? Do you continue letting a dying neighborhood die, or do you accept that fact that nothing is really going to change the situation (until people themselves start acting for themselves) so you might as well try to at least provide the community with some means of getting better. I totally agree Walmart isnt the best choice in a general scenario, but unfortunately it is the best choice in a lot of these communities today (simply because of the 1 billion they're agreeing to spend).

Edited June 24, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, I'll concede that, in the short term, this may help community residents (I'd like to see a follow-up study to the Loyola/ UIC one a few years from now, but they may be very difficult due to various economic factors). But long term, no, this won't help them or communities like it across the country.

 

Far enough, but I dunno that anyone is claiming that Wal-mart is going to be a long term solution. Again, that comes down to people, not whether government decides to let a store to be built.